Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today because I haven't been able to open up a newspaper in the last few months without reading about another product coming into this country from overseas that is tainted, poisonous, or dangerous in some major way.

Tainted pet food, counterfeit alcohol, poisonous toothpaste, children's toys with lead paint . . . the list goes on and on.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about these dangers only when it's too late to do anything about them without spending valuable time and resources to fix the problem. We need to do a better job of ensuring the safety of these imported products across the board.

As a father and a consumer, I hope that in the coming weeks we'll devote the time necessary to figuring out how to identify these problems. We need to act before we read about more recalls or worse-- when someone gets physically ill because of lax regulations or enforcement. We have a duty to ensure that the stream of commerce isn't polluted.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, September 4, 2007, Molly Parish Howard, Principal of Jefferson County High School in Louisville, Georgia, was named National High School Principal of the Year by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. I had the privilege of attending her recognition ceremony and was moved by her dedication to, and passion for, her students, her school and her community.

Dr. Howard has devoted the past 30 years of her life to the children of Jefferson County, Georgia. In one way or another, she's been walking the halls of the public schools in that area nearly all her life. Dr. Howard began her own education in the schools of Jefferson County. Just three years after her graduation from Wrens High School she returned to become one of the school system's first special education teachers.

Dr. Howard has been serving as Principal of the Jefferson County High School since 1995. When she became principal, she made it her policy that every child in her high school would receive a college preparatory education. Even with an increasingly challenging curriculum, nearly every indicator of the success of a high school has improved since Dr. Howard took that job.

Dr. Howard represents what is best about our best schools. What's more important, she brings out the best in her faculty and staff, her students, and their families. She uses innovation and creativity to inspire excellence in her teachers; she is a conscientious member of her community; and she is a friend, a mentor, and a good example to her students. She is the kind of person I'm grateful to have working on the front lines of our nation's future. I'm proud to represent her and her school, and I congratulate her on this well deserved achievement.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as Congress works to expand domestic energy production alternatives, one area of renewed focus is nuclear power production. For those of us who support nuclear energy, it is essential that there be adequate oversight and independent research to make sure that nuclear technology is safe and sustainable.

For the past 50 years, Mr. Chairman, that independent research has been the primary objective of Savannah River Ecology Lab. In fact, the ecology lab was founded to give the public confidence that the Energy Department's works at Savannah River Site would not sacrifice public safety or the environment.

That work continues today. In fact, the lab is the only lab in the Nation funded by the Department of Energy that conducts independent research into the long-term effects of low-level radiation and nuclear energy production.

Unfortunately, the Department of Energy doesn't seem to want independent oversight, and they have zeroed out the $4 million in funding for the lab. It seems to me that $4 million a year is a small price to pay to make sure that the ongoing work at the SRS, and nuclear energy production in general, is being done in a manner that

promotes public safety and protects our land, our air, and our waterways.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with him and our colleagues in the other body to make sure that the Nation has the adequate oversight and the independent research that is needed to safely promote nuclear technology.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill that addresses the needs of our veterans who've been neglected for too long now. Taking care of our veterans is important at any time, but it's particularly important in a time of war. So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff for your hard work on this bill.

I recently conducted a tour of veterans service organizations all across my district, and one of the things I heard over and over again was the growth in demand for veterans services in the future, and that's what I'd like to discuss with you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, community-based outpatient clinics play a vital role in meeting the health care needs of our veterans, especially in the rural parts of our country. My district, a 17-county area centered on Statesboro, Georgia, contains some 34,000 veterans. And I ask for your commitment, Mr. Chairman, to work in conference with the other body to look at this area and evaluate the need and determine the feasibility of a community-based outpatient clinic in Statesboro, Georgia.

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce CREATE-21, a measure aimed at ``Creating Research, Extension, and Teaching Excellence for the 21st Century.''

America has arrived at a critical juncture with respect to the food, agricultural, and natural resource sciences. Ahead of us are two paths. The first is the path of the status quo. It is not a bad path--after all, it has provided the Nation and the world with bountiful and affordable food and numerous other benefits. No, this path is not bad; it's just not as good as it should be.

The other path--the CREATE-21 path--recognizes that the status quo, when it comes to the Federal-State Partnership in the Food and Agricultural Sciences (as that term is broadly defined by statute), is no longer sustainable and thus no longer acceptable. This Nation and the whole planet face both daunting challenges and tremendous opportunities that will require structural and funding improvements. Here are some examples:

Challenges such as the effects of changing climate on farms and forests cannot be solved with an inadequate USDA science organization and woefully inadequate funding.

Opportunities for replacing a substantial portion of U.S. petroleum consumption through increased production of renewable fuels (without raising grain and livestock prices unduly) cannot be attained without a major increase in funding for basic research and applied research and ``integrated'' efforts (where research is combined with education and technology transfer through extension agents).

Efforts to boost the U.S. specialty crops and organic food industries will not come to fruition in a timely manner--thereby threatening America's world leadership positions--if part of the responsibility for research continues to lie within one USDA agency and part in another, with inadequate coordination between the two!

Problems such as the twin (and related) epidemics of obesity and diabetes cannot be overcome with Federal research, education, and extension efforts divided among two USDA agencies (and some 105 land- grant universities) unless the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics has under his immediate supervision a national program staff that can provide overarching vision, guidance, and leadership for those two agencies.

Madam Speaker, these are only four examples--among dozens that I could have chosen--but they make the case for the comprehensive approach embodied in CREATE-21. They demonstrate that the opportunities and challenges we face demand both an improved organizational structure and enhanced funding.

When the House Committee on Agriculture sits down in the next few weeks to develop the 2007 Farm Bill, I am hopeful that the foundational precepts and specific provisions embodied in the legislation I introduce today will form the basis for the Committee's Research Title. Therefore, I want to take a few minutes to highlight three key provisions:

CREATE-21 will increase planning and implementation across intramural (e.g., ARS and ERS) and extramural (e.g., land-grant) facilities through a single national program staff working directly for the USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics.

CREATE-21 will also establish a new National Institutes for Food and Agriculture (replacing the current Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service) to provide continuing and expanded support to America's land-grant and other universities and related institutions.

Finally, CREATE-21 will double authorized funding for the food, agriculture, and natural resource research, teaching, and extension programs currently administered by Cooperative State Research, Education, and Economics Service in order to address the enormous opportunities and daunting challenges that face the country and the greater global community.

Besides these distinctive elements, CREATE-21 has three other unique attributes:

CREATE-21 will strengthen the land-grant system with its integrated, National network of State Agricultural Experiment Stations, more than 3,000 Cooperative Extension offices, and universities in all 50 states, DC, and the U.S. territories.

CREATE-21 will augment ``integrated'' USDA funding programs so that many more grants which integrate research with extension and/or education are awarded through competitive, peer-reviewed procedures.

Lastly, CREATE-21 will bolster university capacity, especially for the historically black (1890), tribal (1994), insular area, and small 1862 land-grant universities and members of the American Association of State Colleges of Agriculture and Renewable Resources (AASCARR).

In addition to these provisions, the legislation I am introducing today contains many other amendments to USDA research, extension, and teaching statutes, reflecting the best thinking of a broad cross- section of America's land grant community. These provisions include critical updates that will enhance, among other things, the basic programs providing sustenance for the 1890 land-grant institutions and critical food, health, and nutritional information to low-income families and youth through the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. In fact, this legislation addresses ALL of the Farm Bill priorities outlined by the Presidents of the 1890 colleges.

While I support the key tenets of this legislation and am pleased to introduce it in the House, we all recognize that difficult problems require consensus-based solutions and I remain open to suggestions. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee as we develop a Research Title for the 2007 Farm Bill that truly has at its core mission: ``Creating Research, Extension, and Teaching Excellence for the 21st Century.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will make good on a 50-year old promise that has been neglected in this country for 30 years now. For over 50 years, this government has promised veterans that they would be reimbursed for the full out-of-pocket costs they incur in traveling to and from medical care that they receive. For the first 20 years, this government kept that promise. Every time the civil service mileage rate went up, the veterans' reimbursement rate went up.

But for the last 30 years, that promise has not been kept. The mileage rate for veterans traveling to get their medical treatment hasn't gone up, hasn't changed one bit since 1977. The rate for vets is the same $0.11 per mile today that it was in 1977. In 1977, civil servants got $0.11 and vets got $0.11. But, today, civil servants get 48.5 cents for every mile they drive their car. But vets still get the same $0.11 they got back in 1977.

That is not all. Since then, Congress has tacked on a $6 deductible for vets that doesn't apply to civil servants. When you add it all up, you have got to travel over 50 miles to get the free medical care you have been promised before you will get one dime of reimbursement from the Federal Government. And if you have to travel as much as 500 miles, you get a lousy 48 bucks back in return.

The reason for this problem is simple. When Congress made this promise way back in the 1950s, it passed a law that authorized the VA to keep up with changes in the cost of travel, to keep up with inflation, but it didn't require the VA to do anything about it. And since 1977 nothing has been done about it.

My amendment will fix that by doing two things. First, it will eliminate the $6 deductible, round-trip deductible that applies to vets but not to civil servants; and, second, it will mandate that the mileage reimbursement rate for veterans traveling to and from medical care will go up every time the rate goes up for civil servants. There will be no more having to remember vets when they raise the reimbursement rate for civil servants, and there will be no more forgetting vets every time they are entitled to an increase in the reimbursement.

This legislation has the support of the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the American Legion, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

This amendment is about making good on a promise we made to our veterans, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support.

On a personal level, I want to thank the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction in this matter. I also want to thank the staffs of the committees on Armed Services and Veterans' Affair and the staff of the Rules Committee.

And I want to thank Mr. Moran for his kind remarks earlier today. He supported this measure in the last Congress, and he continues to support it today. And I appreciate his support very much.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will yield to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of personal pride and a great deal of civic pride that I join my colleagues in support of this resolution today.

On the civic side of things, I have the privilege of representing Savannah, Georgia, in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my hometown. Juliette Gordon Low founded the Girl Scouts in Savannah. She was a native of Savannah. She founded the organization in 1912. The first organization's headquarters was in the back of her home in Savannah, Georgia, and from that humble beginning some 95 years ago we have gone from 18 members to almost 4 million members worldwide. I go by that building every time I am in town on the way to work, walking on the streets. It gives me a great deal of civic pride, along with the rest of my fellow Savannahians, who recognize that Girl Scouts the world over look to Savannah as the home and the homeplace of Girl Scouting.

On a personal level, I venture to say that very few of us guys in the U.S. House of Representatives are closer to Girl Scouting than I am. I have three sisters. Every one of them was a Girl Scout, including my twin sister, and I can tell you as a guy you don't get much closer to Girl Scouting than that.

I know that there are lots of organizations that promote courage, confidence and character in young girls but none do as good a job as the Girl Scouts.

On behalf of my hometown, on behalf of the 700,000 people that I have privilege of representing in Congress, and on behalf of the millions of brothers of Girl Scouts the worldwide, I am proud to congratulate the Girl Scouts on their 95th anniversary, and I extend my best wishes for the next 95 years.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is long past time to fix what is broke with the CFIUS process, and I want to commend all involved in bringing us thus far on the project. I want to thank Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Frank and the Financial Services Committee for their work in bringing this important legislation to the floor.

Last year, in response to the Dubai business, we had sort of a reprise of the Dubai business in my district. We had yet another CFIUS deal that actually came to public light, the Doncaster's deal that affected a plant and a business in my district. In response to the concerns that were swirling then around the Dubai business, I introduced a bill in the Congress last time, the Protect America First Act. And I am pleased to say that the bill before us incorporates many of the basic features of the Protect America First Act that I drafted in the last Congress.

One important area that I want to focus on has to do with the subject of postapproval oversight, the process or the lack of process under the existing law whereby Congress knows what is going on as it happens and after it happens. Congress has had no effective postapproval oversight of the project for the last 14, 16 years, and as a result, we have had many, many transactions without anybody having any idea what is going on.

Section 7 of the bill before us greatly addresses that problem by providing some meaningful postapproval oversight, the first real, effective oversight that Congress has had in this process since it was launched back in 1988.

The purpose of my amendment is to significantly enhance the postapproval oversight of Congress by making sure that not just folks with the greatest need to know, but the folks who know the most about the deals are also provided postapproval oversight.

My amendment does one thing and one thing only; it simply expands the universe of those folks who will be told what has happened after it has happened, to include the Members of the United States Senate from the States affected; and the Members of the House, not just the chairmen of the respective committees, but the Members of the House whose districts include the businesses and the employees of the businesses involved. That is the purpose of my amendment. That is all it does. I urge approval of the amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Barrow

Amendment No. 11: Page 14, line 18, strike the closing

quotation marks and the 2nd period.

Page 14, after line 18, insert the following new paragraph:

``(7) Notice to the congress.--

``(A) Receipt of written notification.--Before the end of

the 5-day period beginning on the day the Chairperson of the

Committee receives a written notice under paragraph (1)(C) of

a proposed covered transaction, the Chairperson shall provide

notice of the receipt of such written notice to the Members

of Congress referred to in subparagraph (D).

``(B) Commencement of investigation.--Not later than 1 day

after commencing an investigation under paragraph (2) of a

covered transaction, the Chairperson shall provide notice of

the investigation and relevant information regarding the

covered transaction, including relevant ownership records, to

the Members of Congress referred to in subparagraph (D).

``(C) Access to investigations.--The Chairperson of the

Committee shall--

``(i) provide responses in a timely manner to any inquiries

made by the Members of Congress referred to in subparagraph

(D) regarding an investigation; and

``(ii) notify such Members of Congress promptly of the

decision of the Committee upon completion of the

investigation.

``(D) Members of congress.--The Members of Congress

referred to in this paragraph are as follows:

``(i) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of

Representatives.

``(ii) The Majority and Minority Leader of the Senate.

``(iii) The Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee on

Financial Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, the

Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Energy and

Commerce, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the

House of Representatives.

``(iv) The Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee on

Finance, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental

Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the Select

Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

``(v) The Senators representing States and the Members of

Congress representing districts affected by the proposed

covered transaction.''.

Offered By: Mr. Barrow

Amendment No. 12: Page 24, line 26, strike ``and'' after

the semicolon.

Page 25, line 9, strike the period at the end and insert

``; and''.

Page 25, after line 9, insert the following new clause:

``(iv) Senators representing States and Members of Congress

representing congressional districts that would be

significantly affected by the covered transaction.''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise this afternoon to remember one of our fellow delegation members, the Honorable Charlie Norwood. I know that many Members of this body served with Charlie much longer than I did, but unlike them, I think I may be the only Member here with the distinction of once actually having been represented by Charlie as one of his constituents.

Charlie Norwood was an accomplished and a tireless legislator who had stands on issues that ran the political spectrum. And while I may not have agreed with him on every issue, I always admired his spirit, and I say that as a former constituent and as a colleague.

As anyone who knew him will tell you, Charlie cared deeply for the State of Georgia and for the people he represented in Congress for over 12 years.

In this Chamber and among this delegation, there is no question that Charlie Norwood will be missed and his absence will be long felt here in Washington and back home in Georgia.

My prayers remain with Congressman Norwood's wife, Gloria, and with their entire family.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, since taking a seat in this body over 2 years ago, I have supported our President's efforts in the war on terror at every turn. I have been to Iraq. I have visited those wounded there, and I have spoken with family members who have sacrificed more for their country than most people could stand.

I have carefully considered the President's plan. I have listened to his reasons, and I have tried to understand them. But the inescapable conclusion

is this. While there are differences between the President's new strategy and his prior conduct of the war, the similarities still outweigh the differences. The President's new plan is not a new strategy. Instead, it represents more of the same strategy that has gotten us to where we are today. If we are going to defeat terrorism in Iraq, we simply cannot afford to keep doing more of the same.

Congress cannot manage a war, and it should not try. Instead, Congress' job is to demand accountability from those charged with the conduct of the war effort, and so far Congress has failed to do that job.

This resolution, however imperfect, is intended to bring about some accountability on the part of those charged with the conduct of the war effort, and it says of the President's plan, thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.

The President's plan is found wanting because he doesn't explain how this escalation in the number of American troops can make any difference in a war plan that depends on redeploying so many more Iraqi troops. We have been given no credible explanation as to why 21,000 more American troops can accomplish what the 130,000 already on the ground cannot accomplish.

The President's plan is found wanting because it calls for completely new rules of engagement.

The President's plan is found wanting because it calls for new rules of engagement, with no explanation as to why such rules of engagement were not allowed in the past when they would have done the most good.

The question before us is not whether the President's new plan represents a better chance of success in Iraq. The real question is whether the chances for success it represents is a good enough chance to be worth the sacrifices that our soldiers will have to make to implement it.

A 1 percent increase in the chances of success may be better than no increase, but our troops deserve a better plan that that. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this plan represents the change in strategy that we need in Iraq, nor does it offer a good enough chance for success to be worth the sacrifices that it will cost. And that is why I will support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude today to Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar and to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Mr. Petri, and the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for working with me to include an amendment I offered in the committee's markup of this bill last summer. I also want to thank the International Association of Firefighters for supporting this amendment, and Jennifer Esposito with the Transportation Committee for her hard work on this bill and the amendment.

The amendment included in this legislation increases the emergency response grant program by $4 million a year to a total of $10 million a year. The amendment also requires training standards to make sure that emergency responders have the training they need to protect nearby people, property and the environment from the effects of accidents or incidents involving gas or hazardous liquid pipelines.

I have a letter of support for this amendment from the International Association of Firefighters, and I will include this letter in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation to make our communities safer, and it gives first responders the training and resources they need. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

International Association of

Fire Fighters,

Washington, DC, July 19,2006.

Hon. John Barrow,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Barrow: On behalf of the Nation's more

than 270,000 professional fire fighters and emergency medical

personnel, I applaud you for your efforts to improve

emergency response to accidents involving gas or hazardous

liquid pipelines. We strongly support your amendment to H.R.

5782, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, to require strong

emergency responder training standards, as well as your

amendment to provide additional funding for emergency

response grants.

While the safety of emergency responders can never be fully

guaranteed, the number of injuries resulting from gas or

hazardous liquid accidents can be significantly reduced

through appropriate training. While training is always

necessary for new recruits, refresher training must also be

provided on a continuing basis to ensure the ongoing safety

of all first responders.

Furthermore, in responding to an incident involving

hazardous materials, it is extremely important that emergency

responders are not simply trained, but are trained at a level

appropriate to their response. Unfortunately, the level of

training currently provided in many States and localities is

inadequate to prepare emergency responders to respond to an

accident involving gas or other hazardous materials. Your

amendments not only help provide adequate. funding to ensure

that all emergency responders are trained, but ensure that

responders are trained to contain any release from a safe

distance, keep it from spreading, and prevent people,

property and the environment from harmful exposures.

Thank you for your leadership on these vital issues. We

appreciate your continued support of our Nation's first

responders and look forward to working with you in the coming

weeks to enhance hazardous materials emergency response.

Sincerely,

Barry Kasinitz,

Director, Governmental Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it will actually make it harder for the Justice Department to use its authority under section 5 to prevent discrimination from taking root.

It will do this by forcing the Department to treat those jurisdictions where the disease of discrimination is in remission as though the disease was cured once and for all.

It will make it harder for the Department to do its job by forcing the Department to turn way from treating the disease where it is still rampant, and spend all of its resource reexamining and re-reexamining and re-re-reexamining those places where it is in remission.

No doctor trying to eliminate a disease would regard remission as a cure, and neither should the Voting Rights Act.

No doctor trying to eliminate a disease would ignore those who are obviously sick and spend all his time treating a patient whose disease is in remission, and neither should the Voting Rights Act.

I was raised on the Ten Commandants, as was the sponsor of this amendment, and one of those commandments is one that I know he knows. It says, ``Thou shall not steal.''

Well, this amendment does not come right out and violate or break that commandment, but it does make it easier for those folks to break that commandment.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their work on this important bill.

Mr. Chairman, since I joined Congress last year, illegal immigration has been debated, discussed and voted on a lot in this House, and it is the number one concern with a lot of folks that I represent back home in Georgia.

We all know that the explosion of illegal immigrants is imposing a huge cost on local schools and local hospitals, but it is also imposing a huge new cost on local law enforcement as well. Local police departments are already stretched to the limit financially in dealing with home-grown crime. Despite that, most do an outstanding job of serving the public without all the resources they already need.

But because we still haven't secured our borders, we have caused local law enforcement to have to do more. We have asked them to do more, and yet the Federal Government is not helping them to deal with that part of the crime problem that the Federal Government has actually created.

Since 9/11, Congress hasn't helped. We have given local law enforcement more to do, but less to do it with. We have expanded State and local law enforcement's authority to investigate, arrest and jail undocumented criminal aliens.

When we expand the responsibilities of State and local police, when we ask them to do more, we have an obligation to give them the resources that they need in order to do more.

In 1994, Congress created the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the SCAAP program, and since then it has provided over $4.1 billion in financial assistance to States, reimbursing State and local police for the cost of jailing undocumented criminal aliens.

In the last fiscal year alone, my home State of Georgia received $1.8 million in SCAAP funding for our State and local police. This year, funding for SCAAP was zeroed out in the President's budget. Fortunately, this bill will reinstate some funding for this program, but the amount is still far short of the amount that is authorized of the amount that is needed.

My amendment would provide an additional $10 million to the SCAAP program.

Frankly, we have enough home-grown crime to deal with already without having to deal with the crime that we are literally importing from other countries. As a result, my amendment pays for an increase in SCAAP funding through an \8/10\ of 1 percent decrease in funding from the account that pays membership fees to international organizations.

Earlier this year, the President addressed the Nation and announced he would be sending National Guard troops to our southern border to help stem the flood of illegal immigrants flowing into the United States. National Guard troops on the border may help stem the flow of new illegal immigrants, but they do nothing to deal with the criminal element that has already gotten through.

With an estimated is 11 million illegal immigrants already living in the United States, our local law enforcement agencies continue to serve as our first line of defense in dealing with the criminal element that has already entered the country. That is why we need to provide State and local police with the resources that they need to do the job that we impose upon them.

I therefore urge my colleagues to help State and local law enforcement deal with undocumented criminals and support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.